1 CGHC010248432026 2026:CGHC:31833-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 416 of 2026 Kripal Singh Vakre S/o Hardin Singh Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Bahutadol Post Marwahi Police Station And Tehsil Marwahi District Gourela-Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh. Through His Daughter Vimla Singh Vakre Daughter Of Kripal Singh Vakre Aged About 25 Years R/o Police Station And Tehsil Marwahi District Gourela Pendra-Marwahi Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its, Principal Secretary, Department Of Home (Jail) Mahanadi Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Jail Superintendent Central Jail Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The District Magistrate District Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Superintendent Of Police Gourela Pendra Marwahi, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Goswami, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Add. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.07.27 16:13:46 +0530 2 Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 27.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Rahul Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 To call for entire records from respondents pertaining to petitioners leave case for kind perusal of the Hon'ble High Court. 10.2 To quash impugned memo dated 07.04.2026 (Annexure P-1) and also to direct respondents to release petitioner on parole under the Chhattisgarh Prisoner's Leave Rules 1989. 10.3 That the petitioner be kindly granted leave to visit his family. 10.4 To grant any others relief deemed fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case. An affidavit is filed herewith in support of this petition is being filled herewith.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is presently lodged in Central Jail, Bilaspur, as Prisoner No. 2232/137, undergoing sentence of imprisonment pursuant to his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Court. It 3 is submitted that the petitioner has now undergone more than four years of actual imprisonment and has thus become eligible for grant of leave under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner had submitted an application seeking leave before the Jail Superintendent, which was forwarded to the District Magistrate for obtaining the requisite report. However, respondent No. 3, acting solely upon the adverse opinion of the Superintendent of Police and without independently applying its mind, rejected the petitioner’s application. It is contended that the impugned order has been passed mechanically, without recording the satisfaction contemplated under Rule 6 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989, that the release of the petitioner would be prejudicial to public safety, rendering the rejection arbitrary and unsustainable. 4. It is further submitted that Rule 4 of the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989 prescribes the eligibility conditions for grant of leave, namely that the release should not be against public interest and that the prisoner should have maintained good conduct in jail without committing any jail offence. The petitioner fulfills all the statutory requirements, including completion of the prescribed period of imprisonment along with remission, and is not disqualified under any provision of the Rules. Learned counsel submits that the object of grant of leave is reformative and rehabilitative, enabling a convict to maintain social and familial ties and to facilitate reintegration into society. 4 Reliance has also been placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shor v. State of Uttar Pradesh (W.P. (Cr.) No. 58 of 2020, decided on 05.08.2020), wherein it has been held that parole cannot be denied merely because the offence is heinous. It is further submitted that this Court, following the said principle in Sohit Kumar Kenwat v. State of Chhattisgarh (W.P. (Cr.) No. 71 of 2026, decided on 03.02.2026), granted the benefit of parole. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the submissions and would submit that the petitioner stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and is undergoing sentence of imprisonment pursuant to a judgment of conviction passed by the competent Sessions Court. It is submitted that the petitioner’s application for grant of leave was duly considered by the competent authority in accordance with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989. After obtaining the report of the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, it was found that the release of the petitioner on leave was likely to adversely affect public peace and tranquillity and was not conducive to public interest. The competent authority, upon being satisfied on the basis of the materials available on record, rejected the petitioner’s application by a reasoned order. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness or perversity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 5 It is further pointed out that this Court in WPPIL No. 33 of 2025 (In the Matter of Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) has already expressed its concern that several prisoners released on parole or short-term bail have absconded and have not returned to custody, thereby creating serious law and order issues. In light of such observations, the competent authority rightly rejected the petitioner’s application for parole, and no interference is warranted. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order rejecting the petitioner’s application for leave. Though the petitioner has completed the minimum period of imprisonment prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Prisoners Leave Rules, 1989, mere fulfillment of the eligibility criteria does not confer an indefeasible or vested right to be released on leave. The competent authority is required to consider the overall facts and circumstances of each case, including the report of the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police regarding the likely impact of the prisoner’s release on public peace, public order and public safety. In the present case, the competent authority has considered the relevant materials and has recorded its satisfaction that the petitioner’s release would not be in the larger public interest. This Court does not find the decision-making process to be arbitrary, mala fide or contrary to the statutory provisions so as to warrant judicial interference. The scope of judicial review in such matters is limited to examining the legality of 6 the decision-making process and not to substitute the satisfaction of the competent authority with that of the Court. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet